2024:BHC-AS:51078 Arjun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5567 OF 2017 Shri. Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan …Petitioners Trust, Kumshet, Taluka – Junnar, District - Pune & Ors.

V/s.

Sau. Vina Yogesh Doke & Ors. …Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant a/w Mr. Heramb Kadam & Ms. Samiksha S. Mane i/b Mr. Himanshu Kode, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Vinayak B. Gadekar, for Respondent No.1.

Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - State.

_______________________________________________________________

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE: 25 NOVEMBER 2024 JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, learned Counsel alongwith Mr. Heramb Kadam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Vinayak Gadekar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, learned AGP, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State.

I] CHALLENGE:

2. By present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners i.e. Original Respondents have challenged the legality and validity of the Order dated 2nd February 2017 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune in Misc. Application No.4 of 2017. The said Misc. Application No.4 of 2017 was filed by the present Respondent No.1 seeking to recall/review and set aside Order dated 5th January 2017 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune in Revision Application No.1 of 2016 and seeking that the registration of the Trust known as Shri. Hanuman Maruti Deosthan Trust, at and Post. Kumshet, Taluka - Junnar, District - Pune bearing P.T.R. No.A-2651 (Pune) be cancelled. The said Misc. Application was filed on the ground that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune committed a procedural error/mistake of such a nature which vitiates the said Order. By the impugned order the said Misc. Application No.4 of 2017 was allowed and order passed in Inquiry Application No.1682/2013 dated 19th June

2014 is set aside.

II] SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel alongwith Mr. Heramb Kadam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners raised the following contentions:

(i) The power of review is to be specifically given by the statute i.e. in the present case by the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (“said Act”). There is no express power of review conferred on the authorities by the said Act and, therefore, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to review his own Order. It is the submission of the Petitioners that the provisions of the said Act have been misconstrued and misinterpreted, resulting into miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the present case is not a case which can come within the ambit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal ¹, on which the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has relied.

(ii) Learned Counsel relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court:

(i) Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradhymansinghji Arjunsinghji, [(1971) 3 SCC 844]

(ii) Naresh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [(2019) 9 SCC 416]

(iii) Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning &

Weaving Mills Ltd., [(2005) 13 SCC 777]

(iv) Trimbakrao Shahurao Deshmukh v. Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmednagar ⁵ (v) Anna S/o Shriram Fate v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, [2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 298]

(vi) Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. The State of Maharashtra ⁷ (vii) Anna Bapu Bhosale v. The Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority ⁸ By relying on said decisions it is the submission that, unless the statute/rules provides by specific provision power of review, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial and quasi-judicial orders. Learned Counsel ubmitted that, in absence of any provision in

1 AIR 1981 SC 606

5 Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2005 & Writ Petition No.4210 of 2000 decided by a Division

Benc